The CDC Changed It's Ebola Prevention Page on Sept. 19, 2014. Why?

Now before we get our tinfoil hats screwed on too tightly, there could be a plausible explanation for this. It's just possible that the page contained old information that had been rendered irrelevant, and they'd been lazy about updating it until now.

However, the fact remains that the page had been updated, and the old version is hardly reassuring.

It's too bad there's no real way to know why they just updated it so recently and took all that old info out. Right?

Oh, and this makes it all better, too. Do the CDC even know how this works? Listen to the conversation in the video here because it sounds like the CDC has some kind of benchmark for a cough or sneeze is or isn't a problem? I guess if you hwork up a big bloody loogy on someone it might be a problem ... Anyhow. I feel so much better.

a reply to: ketsuko
Interesting.
Not comforting, but interesting.
At least they added the part about avoiding eating bats and monkeys.

Didn't see a link or vid on the OP, is Grandma losing it?

Anyway, here is what I posted on another thread:

The CDC is trying to avoid panic in the USA

Please take time to read up on transmission from sources other than the CDC, it is far far easier than we are being led to believe.

Canadian Health Department and CDC statements:

The Canadian Health Department states that airborne transmission of Ebola is strongly suspected and the CDC admits that Ebola can be transmitted in situations where there is no physical contact between people, i.e.: via direct airborne inhalation into the lungs or into the eyes, or via contact with airborne fomites which adhere to nearby surfaces. That helps explain why 81 doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers have died in West Africa to date.
www.americanthinker.com...


A study done on airborne transmission:

They first inoculated a number of piglets with the Zaire strain of the Ebola virus. Ebola-Zaire is the deadliest strain, with mortality rates up to 90 percent. The piglets were then placed in a room with four cynomolgus macaques, a species of monkey commonly used in laboratories. The animals were separated by wire cages to prevent direct contact between the species. Within a few days, the inoculated piglets showed clinical signs of infection indicative of Ebola infection. In pigs, Ebola generally causes respiratory illness and increased temperature. Nine days after infection, all piglets appeared to have recovered from the disease.Within eight days of exposure, two of the four monkeys showed signs of Ebola infection. Four days later, the remaining two monkeys were sick too.
- See more at: healthmap.org...
healthmap.org...

The term "not airborne" simply means the virus is too heavy to stay in the air for more than a few feet, but anyone within those few feet is exposed.

Instructions for laboratory workers and health care workers:

SOURCES/SPECIMENS: Blood, serum, urine, respiratory and throat secretions, semen, and organs or their homogenates from human or animal hosts Footnote 1 Footnote 2 Footnote 53.
COMMUNICABILITY: Communicable as long as blood, body fluids or organs, contain the virus. Ebolavirus has been isolated from semen 61 to 82 days after the onset of illness, and transmission through semen has occurred 7 weeks after clinical recovery Footnote 1 Footnote 2 Footnote 59 Footnote 60.
Ebolavirus dried onto glass, polymeric silicone rubber, or painted aluminum alloy is able to survive in the dark for several hours under ambient conditions
(between 20 and 250C and 30–40% relative humidity) (amount of virus reduced to 37% after 15.4 hours), but is less stable than some other viral hemorrhagic fevers (Lassa) Footnote 53. When dried in tissue culture media onto glass and stored at 4 °C, Zaire ebolavirus survived for over 50 days Footnote 61.
PHYSICAL INACTIVATION: Ebola are moderately thermolabile and can be inactivated by heating for 30 minutes to 60 minutes at 60°C, boiling for 5 minutes, or gamma irradiation (1.2 x106 rads to 1.27 x106 rads) combined with 1% glutaraldehyde Footnote 10 Footnote 48 Footnote 50.
www.phac-aspc.gc.ca...

There is no FDA approved vaccine.

Does that mean there is one or more out there, just not approved by the FDA?


And they had to get rid of the "unsure exactly how it is transmitted".

Too much truth in that statement. Can't have that. Because even with all the "procedures", the doctors still got it.

a reply to: ketsuko

I amy be wrong, but the CDC currently reminds me of this clip.

How to catch Ebola.

The CDC says it is not airborne, because technically it is not, airborne in disease terms means the virus is small enough to travel more than a few feet in a sneeze or cough. The Ebola virus is large and falls within 3-4 feet of a sneeze and so is not technically airborne.



However, the cough and sneeze radius:
would include anyone on the airplane to either side of the ill person

also, the people behind and in front of the ill person.

Sitting in the airport lounge waiting for a flight, anyone within a 3-4 foot radius, infected, if the sick person sneezes or coughs.

Using the urinal, the guy who is ill standing next to you sneezes or coughs, infected.

Passing by you on a airplane on the way to the restroom, a sneeze or cough, infected.

Standing next to you waiting for luggage, sneeze or cough, infected.

Standing next to you in line getting on the plane or off, or in the security line, sneeze or cough, infected.

In an elevator with you and sneezes or coughs, infected.

Standing within 3 feet of you anywhere and sneezes or coughs, infected.




Also, if the person who is ill gets any bodily fluid on their hands:

whatever they touch will carry the germ
long enough

that if someone who is ill and didn't just wash their hands

for instance touches a restroom handle immediately afterward

or touches the top of an airplane seat,

pushes an elevator button

touches a door handle

immediately after the ill person touches it, infected




If it is so hard to catch, then how did Docs in haz mat suits catch it in Africa? They certainly weren't swapping spit with patients.

a reply to: grandmakdw

There are two links. The video from CNN is in the second one.

Some of this info is on the healthcare worker page. Otherwise it is just an update

a reply to: grandmakdw

No, technically, ebola is not airborne the way cold or flu is. In the second link in the OP, the CNN gal is asking the CDC guy very carefully to clarify that, and he starts getting into the weeds. Mostly, if a person with active Ebola coughs or sneezes in your general vicinity or in your office building or plane, you aren't going to need to worry about it traveling through the ventilation system like you would a cold or flu bug.

However, if you are standing right next to the guy and he sneezes a big wet one right in your face ... you might be in trouble or not. I think the chances are lower than if he vomits on your lap or something, but they exist.

a reply to: chiefsmom

It's possible there might be. Let's face it. There aren't many really good ways to develop and test something for Ebola.

There are always experimental vaccines that the general public doesn't get until it's considered a must.

My husband almost had to get an experimental encephalitis vaccine for his job that the military currently only has access to and those who work directly with encephalitis or in a facility that works with encephalitis. The reason why the general public doesn't get it? According to coworkers who have had to take it, it makes you feel like jack shyte for a period of time. Given the way people scream about any little thing having to do with vaccines these days, can you imagine trying to require that for the general public?

originally posted by: grandmakdw

How to catch Ebola.

The CDC says it is not airborne, because technically it is not, airborne in disease terms means the virus is small enough to travel more than a few feet in a sneeze or cough. The Ebola virus is large and falls within 3-4 feet of a sneeze and so is not technically airborne.



However, the cough and sneeze radius:
would include anyone on the airplane to either side of the ill person

also, the people behind and in front of the ill person.

Sitting in the airport lounge waiting for a flight, anyone within a 3-4 foot radius, infected, if the sick person sneezes or coughs.


.........If it is so hard to catch, then how did Docs in haz mat suits catch it in Africa? They certainly weren't swapping spit with patients.

You're painting a really scary scenario there but where is your evidence it is transmitted so easily by sneezing or coughing?

In actual fact the study where scientists SUSPECTED airbourne transmission was using pigs. When a pig gets Ebola it primarily effects their lungs when a human gets Ebola it concentrates in other organs such as the liver So humans don't generally sneeze with ebola as it is not affecting the lungs, so the victims are very unlikely to go around sneezing on a plane or elsewhere.

One of the authors of the actual study confirms this amongst other things.

Here's what actually happened in the 2012 experiment. Six piglets with Ebola were housed next to four monkeys separated in cages. A buffer zone of roughly 8 inches separated the pigs from the monkeys so that they couldn't touch each other directly. Then, two of the monkeys got Ebola fast enough that it was clear that they caught it from the pigs. But just because this happened between pigs and monkeys doesn't mean it's likely to happen between people. The big difference is that pigs cough and sneeze a lot when they're sick with Ebola — way more than people do.

"You cannot take the pigs and think that it will go the same way in humans," Weingartl said. "One has to consider the species. For pigs, the [Ebola] infection ends up as an infection of the lungs — they have high amounts of the virus in the respiratory tract and so they cough it out. Or when they sneeze or squeal, it just gets out of the lungs. So the virus is in the air directly."

But Ebola affects primates in a different way, Weingartl says. For them, "the main target organ is the liver, so they have high amounts of the virus in the blood and in the feces. They will not be coughing out the virus. And that’s why indirect transmission without contact is probably not happening [among primates and humans]."

www.vox.com...


The health care workers in Africa caught it because of the intense stress they were under in terrible conditions, being dangerously dehydrated in 2 hours etc and then making tiny error when de contaminating....not because people coughed or sneezed on them.

a reply to: chiefsmom

Oh, but that is not problem, two vaccines has been rushed as we speak for testing and been tested, they will be ready in not time and approved, as early as January next year,

Just peachy and in time for the flu season when people will not be able to tell if their symptoms are ebola or just the common flu.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: grandmakdw

No, technically, ebola is not airborne the way cold or flu is. In the second link in the OP, the CNN gal is asking the CDC guy very carefully to clarify that, and he starts getting into the weeds. Mostly, if a person with active Ebola coughs or sneezes in your general vicinity or in your office building or plane, you aren't going to need to worry about it traveling through the ventilation system like you would a cold or flu bug.

However, if you are standing right next to the guy and he sneezes a big wet one right in your face ... you might be in trouble or not. I think the chances are lower than if he vomits on your lap or something, but they exist.

Thank you for showing me where the link is.

Several months ago I read up on Ebola and it being "not airborne"

technically it is not

that is simply because the droplets are heavy and do not travel the required distance to meet the technical standard of airborne transmission, they also fall quickly, too quickly to meet the technical standard of airborne transmission

that being said, they are small enough to travel around 3 feet up to 4 feet in a radius around the ill person
the droplets can land on surfaces where they can remain live for hours

So, the CDC is being technically correct in scientific terms, however,
in how the average American views airborne transmission,
it is transmittable by airborne means.

originally posted by: DrHammondStoat

You're painting a really scary scenario there but where is your evidence it is transmitted so easily by sneezing or coughing?

Several months ago I looked up this information.

The Ebola virus is a large and heavy virus. It definitely does not meet scientific standards of airborne transmission, which in scientific terms is a virus that can travel farther than the Ebola virus does in the air, and can remain in the air longer than the Ebola virus does.

If you noticed, in all my in person contact scenarios the person had to be within 3 feet of the sneezer/cougher.
There is evidence that the Ebola virus can travel in a sneeze or cough for up to 3 feet,
which is far below the standard distance to be scientifically airborne.

Viral transmission can also occur when virus-containing respiratory droplets travel from the respiratory tract of an infected person to mucosal surfaces of another person. Because these droplets are larger, they cannot travel long distances as do aerosols, and are considered a form of contact transmission. Ebola virus can certainly be transmitted from person to person by droplets.

www.virology.ws...

These droplets cannot travel far in the air, but can remain on surfaces for about 8 hours. They can be transmitted if another person inhales the germs or touches contaminated surfaces and then rubs their eyes, nose, or mouth. ...Although droplets of these fluids may spread into the air, they quickly fall to the ground, usually within about 3 feet.

intermountainhealthcare.org...

Its clear that when Ebola is in the air it is at least as hardy as Influenza. Its also clear that coughing and sneezing is what makes Influenza airborne; the same should be expected of Ebola.
Moreover, just as sun, heat, and humidity along the Earths’ Equatorial regions serve to ‘burn’ Influenza out of the air, the same should be expected of Ebola ...Unlike Flu, a person need not inhale airborne Ebola to be infected via airborne transmission. Merely walking through an airspace (or touching the objects therein) where an Ebola victim has coughed or sneezed is potentially enough for a cold weather infection to occur. As such, all indicators are that Ebola’s potential rate of infectious spread in cold weather climates is EXPLOSIVELY greater than what is occurring in Equatorial Africa

healthbeginsathome.com...

Even health labs (see my first post in this thread) say in their instructions to workers that the virus can remain live for hours on surfaces.

Therefore, my scenario where an infected person sneezed or coughed into their hands, or urinated or defacated and didn't wash their hands. Everything they touch can remain infected for hours, or until it the surface is cleaned.

The health care workers in Africa caught it because of the intense stress they were under in terrible conditions, being dangerously dehydrated in 2 hours etc and then making tiny error when de contaminating....not because people coughed or sneezed on them.

So.... they caught it because they were under stress, dehydrated, and made a tiny error...

not because the virus was available nearby and got into their eyes, nose, respiratory system or an open wound of the smallest kind?

No, actually, they caught it because the exposure possibility was there. The rest is just gravy. And if you don't think that Western health care workers don't work when tired, dehydrated and 'making tiny mistakes', you've never been in a hospital.

a reply to: signalfire

One would hope that our health care system would realize that anyone who is dealing with an Ebola patient would need to be sharp and on the ball, so I would think they wouldn't be sending in interns who are serving the last of a 16-hr shift. Not to mention, our hospitals are climate controlled, so they aren't being sapped by working in 100+ degree heat and the humidity that comes with it. And they aren't going to be surrounded by near the degree of death and suffering. Not to mention the absence of people threatening to kill them because they think they are cannibalizing the sick and dying ...

Now, if things get out of hand, badly out of hand, we may get there, but right now, you can't compare the two.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: ketsuko
Interesting.
Not comforting, but interesting.
At least they added the part about avoiding eating bats and monkeys.

It'll be a cold day in hell before I stop eating monkeybats.

a reply to: DrHammondStoat

As someone has already provided the information that evidences that Ebola, although not technically airborne, CAN be transmitted MUCH easier than what we are being told by the CDC, I don't need to elaborate further.

What is distressing to me is all the disinformation that is being pumped furiously into the media for the single purpose of preventing panic. And the failures of the U.S. to control our borders and specifically to prevent communicable diseases from getting into the country.

As someone who works a career and has a condition that affects the ability to travel to many areas because of the stigma of 'public health risk', a condition that truly falls into the 'not tramsmitted by casual contact' category, I ABHOR this disinformation, and the use of the education of the public about the definitions of 'casual contact' and 'airborne transmission' for the last global plague out of Africa, to quell fears about this much more dangerous disease coming here now.

Disinformation will kill many in the U.S. in the very near future I fear.

And you are serving as a tool to spread it.

My question: do you actually believe what you have stated in your post about the transmissibility of Ebola, or (as I suspect) are you trying to stop the public from taking actions to protect themselves and this country? Trying to stop disruption of global travel perhaps? Protecting the fragile economy from more damage? Trying to keep health care workers on the job instead of letting each individual evaluate the TRUE risk for themselves?

If you don't believe it, why are you lying to us?

originally posted by: grandmakdw

How to catch Ebola.

However, the cough and sneeze radius:
would include anyone on the airplane to either side of the ill person

also, the people behind and in front of the ill person.

Sitting in the airport lounge waiting for a flight, anyone within a 3-4 foot radius, infected, if the sick person sneezes or coughs.

Using the urinal, the guy who is ill standing next to you sneezes or coughs, infected.

Passing by you on a airplane on the way to the restroom, a sneeze or cough, infected.

Standing next to you waiting for luggage, sneeze or cough, infected.

Standing next to you in line getting on the plane or off, or in the security line, sneeze or cough, infected.

In an elevator with you and sneezes or coughs, infected.

Standing within 3 feet of you anywhere and sneezes or coughs, infected.




Also, if the person who is ill gets any bodily fluid on their hands:

whatever they touch will carry the germ
long enough

that if someone who is ill and didn't just wash their hands

for instance touches a restroom handle immediately afterward

or touches the top of an airplane seat,

pushes an elevator button

touches a door handle

immediately after the ill person touches it, infected

If it is so hard to catch, then how did Docs in haz mat suits catch it in Africa? They certainly weren't swapping spit with patients.

there is so much wrong with this armchair analysis. First of all, replace "infected" to "exposed". You see, in every example you posted, infection isn't automatic. Replace the word "Ebola" with "the flu" and the same rules apply, except with Ebola, the virus MUST enter through ingestion or through an open wound.

So, just touching a door handle that was previously touched by someone infected with Ebola does not mean you are infected. Now if you go around not washing your hands, or frequently rubbing your open wounds on people's bodily fluids, or licking windows, you might have yourself a problem.

Expose does not, despite your best efforts to fear monger, mean the same thing as infected. Never has.

I would agree that 'exposed' does not mean 'infected'. But we are dealing with a highly infectious agent, that requires very few viral particles to establish an infection. And exposure must come before infection, so that only adds another step in the process per your post.

I would not agree with the rest of your posting, for example, an infected person touches a doorknob with sweaty hands, the particles cna survive at least 96 hours on that doorknob. You touch it, and moments later you scratch your eyes, DEFINITELY exposed, and a great possibility of establishing infection.

We need to PROTEST and stop air travel from those areas, bar any entry from anyone that has been in those areas the last month, and crack down on anyone suspected of being 'exposed'. And CLOSE THAT SOUTHERN BORDER!

Bad times ahead I fear as the gubmint will not do any of this until it is already established and embedded here...which will be in a matter of weeks at this rate.